I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when it
takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes the
unemployment rate to *drop*?

On 8/5/2011 9:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the unemployment rate to *drop*?

Just forget about the 157K for now and readjust in a future month.

On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the unemployment rate to *drop*?

Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds.

And assuming zero population growth, that is about a 20 year recovery
not including that new jobs pay less than old jobs lost.

Bottom line, bad news. This is typically the good time of year for
employment, wait until Sept/Oct.
--
Seems like paying your bills with real money is no longer the accepted
behavior in USA. Perhaps that is the problem and not the the solution.

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the unemployment rate to *drop*?

Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds.

another racist lie, of course

unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop
looking for work you're not counted, even if not working

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the unemployment rate to *drop*?

Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds.

another racist lie, of course

unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop
looking for work you're not counted, even if not working

You know I like to use people's personal thoughts for attacks against
them, so would you please tell me what is racist about asking that
question?

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:13:15 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:38:27 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/08/2011 7:41 AM, Eisboch wrote:
I am not very good at math.

Can someone explain that how adding 117,000 new jobs/mo (good news) when
it takes 157,000 or more/mo to keep up with the population growth causes
the unemployment rate to *drop*?

Your math is good. Fleabaggers have a weird way of polishing turds.

another racist lie, of course

unemployment number count only those LOOKING for work. if you stop
looking for work you're not counted, even if not working


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.

nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

On 8/7/11 3:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

It's been that way for a long, long time (not counting those not looking)

In article ,
says...

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public. Hint: The "real" unemployment rate is
near 20%.
That's scary.

Eisboch (not so dumb after all)

The problem is if you're not looking, you're not looking.
That makes you "retired" from the work force.
Then what happens is when hiring increases, the "unemployment" rate
often rises due to people who get back in the game and start looking
again.
I agree it's a stupid way of getting to the unemployment rate.
Good for the pols only - they can easiily make the numbers look better
than they are.
But since those books have been cooked for years they aren't fooling
anybody.
A general rule is just double the number.
Maybe food stamp use, about 20% of the population now, is a close match
with the "real" unemployment rate.
Bob cracks me up.
20% of the nation is on food stamps, and he's pulling in about +150k but
whining about it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge...stamps-united-
states/story?id=14231657

The U.S. is spending about $70 billion a year in food stamps.

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:43:57 -0400, wrote:


So you agree the real unemployment rate is a lot worse than the
numbers. I think that is what the OP was going for.


nope. what i said was that you're too stupid to understand how it's
measured and so is he

----------------------------------------------------------

I am "stupid" because I posed a legitimate question?

no. you're stupid because you expect the metrology to change so that
bush looks better and the

black

president looks worse


Not counting those who have given up looking, even though employable, is
dishonest and
totally misleading to the public


maybe so. but obama didnt change the method of measurement.